Proposal: restructure and reform ITN[edit]

This is based primarily on the work of User:Monotonehell from Template talk:In the news/Archive 11#Proposal: restructure the section (User:Monotonehell) along with one addition taken from Template talk:In the news#Death criteria and ITN by User:Ouro. It would be helpful if people read the comments on Template talk:In the news/Archive 11#Proposal: restructure the section (User:Monotonehell) if they are unsure about why some of the changes have been made as there is already some discussion there.

Rename the section to "Read more about..."

The title "In the news" has been the constant cause of people misinterpreting the section's purpose and aim. Too many readers assume that ITN is a news ticker, and is the largest source of complaint on Talk:MainPage. "Read more about..." focuses the section's purpose to highlight background information and give readers context behind those issues and events in the public eye.

Commentary is in dark blue

Change the listing criteria

1. The event must be listed in Portal:Current events. However Read more about is not a news service, refrain from reporting unverified news bulletins.

2. Notability or encyclopaedic quality shall play no part in item selection.

If an item is non-notable or non-encyclopaedic its article would be put up for AFD anyway. Relative notability is a POV issue and extremely subjective. This is a never ending source of arguments without resolution.

3. An article on the subject must exist and be more than a basic stub. The article(s) referenced by the item must provide the kinds of background information a reader would expect of an encyclopedia - as opposed to the kind of information a reader would expect from a newspaper. While the article(s) need not be thoroughly updated, they need to reflect the basic facts surrounding the recent event and should be reviewed for inaccuracies. For example in the event of a death, that the article not refer to its subject as still living.

Requiring a substantial article to exist will cut back on the quantity of items put forward for listing, while also fulfilling the section's proposed aim to point readers to quality background material. A reader looking for background information, when pointed to a stub which contains no more information than a newspaper would offer, would be disappointed. While it is not necessary for the article to contain all the details surrounding the recent event (remembering we are an encylopaedia not a news source), they need to have sufficient information such that the reader will have a basic understanding of why they are reading the background information.

The background and updated info should ideally provide sufficient context for the reader to understand why what they're reading is newsworthy. Some events may be self-obvious, for example an election. Others may be less so, particularly if they may seem trivial at first glance or of primary interest to one group of people. This particularly applies to sports records and disasters. For example, floods happen all the time, but floods which have displaced a large number of people are obviously significant. Generally, the reader should not be left wondering why they are reading about something.

Remember that ITN, as with the rest of the main page is predominantly intended to highlight articles the reader may be interested in, not to highlight articles we want editors to improve.

This is moving away from current practise but remember --Wikipedia is not a news site.-- ITN's current direction is treading on Wikinews's toes too much, we may wish to expand the link to Wikinews something like "Read more news at Wikinews" so that readers get the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikinews is our sister news service.. Wikipedia should be known for our timely quality background information on recent events, not for our breaking news - if you want to write news articles please contribute to Wikinews.

4. Categories of candidate items;

Newsworthy event

A newsworthy event can be either natural, man made or otherwise; but not the subject of a famous death, entertainment or sport (see below). Coverage by international mass media can be taken as an indication of newsworthiness. A newsworthy event which is ongoing should generally only be mentioned when it receives significant attention, such as at the beginning and end. This doesn't preclude updating an event which remains for accuracy.

The previous guideline It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest. is again too subjective to be useful. This proposal looks to the international mass media for guidance on newsworthiness. Ideally this shoould include coverage by major mass media from around the world, for example coverage from CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera. After all this section should be following and expanding on the news. This proposal does allow the inclusion of locally based news that has reached international attention.

Since some events are ongoing, we don't want or need to give the events continual coverage on RMA. Instead, we should only mention these events when they receive the most attention, which will usually be at the beginning and at the end.

Obituaries

Should only be listed for significant heads of state, presidents, prime ministers or similar statespersons (former or current), outstanding figures in academic or political life (former or current), or outstanding figures in sports or entertainment, or someone who has otherwise had a profound influence on the culture and society of his or her time in his or her lifetime; it being very probable that that influence shall not at all wane after his or her passing. It is recommended that obituaries be discussed before they are added.

Again the proposed purpose is to provide background information, not report the news, so the links should point to such information.

Entertainment / Sporting event / Sporting achievement

Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Trivial items regarding the personal lives of celebrities, the career moves of sports persons, the promotional release of movies, scheduled performances of musicians, sports results etc should not be included.

Nb. There may be from time to time an exceptional event that warrants inclusion, such an event should be discussed on Template's talk page and a consensus reached before inclusion. In all cases where claims of an exceptional event are made, we should rely primarily on the information already available on wikipedia not on external sources other then to establish newsworthiness

Such subjects are as regular in occurrence as the daily weather and stock reports, their volume is overwhelming, they serve only to promote what amount to commercial activities, thus we shouldn't concern ourselves with them.

5. The item should be formed as a concise sentence fragment, beginning with an ellipse, completing "Read more about..." and included on the template. Links to major players or subjects, complex terms and so on should be included, but care should be taken to not overlink the item. The fragment should be worded so as to imply that it is a recent event.

The use of templates within the item is discouraged, however if such use is unavoidable --The template must be protected against vandalism.--

For example: "Read more about..."

"...the ongoing war between Redland and Blueland over disputed territories."
"...the recent earthquake in Orangeland that has resulted in major loss of life and property."
"...the latest technological breakthrough that means we no longer need suffer wedgies."

6. There is no precedent on RMA. When discussion occurs, each item should be treated on its own merits. While it may be helpful to consider previous cases and the decisions made then, these should not be taken as binding. Consensus can change.

Technically, this applies to most of wikipedia. However it's helpful to remind editors for RMA to avoid unnecessary and unconstructive arguments. This doesn't preclue the use of previous cases to bring additional perspective, particularly if editors still feel the right decision was made in the previous case but arguments should not be made simply based on previous cases.

7. Only one image should be included on Template at any one time. --It must be protected against vandalism-- It should be no more than 100 pixels wide, right justified, and have an informative alt text.

This can be achieved by enclosing the image code in

and adding |100px| followed by the alt text inside the image code, for example: <div style="float:right">[[Image:example-photo.jpeg|100px|This is an example]]</div>. (The use of the "|right" extended image markup should be avoided, since under the current MediaWiki parser it results in unsightly and unsymmetrical white borders around images on the coloured Main Page sections.)

Be sure to add "(pictured right)" to the appropriate item for clarity.

Do not use images under the WP:NFCC. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative.

---